Historicon - Tony Bath Memorial BBDBA Championship

I'd like to report that the Team of " 2006 BC" (Brantley and Caruso) took first place by riding down all our opponents using an all mounted force with a 2 aggression. Unfortunately the results do not make that report possible as we lost narrowly (but consistently) in all bounds. We were even shoved out of last place by other more cunning players.

What did we learn? The scribes are compiling the events now for an indepth analysis so that Team 2006 BC can begin the finger pointing with a firm data base behind them.

First reports have shown that the BLACK DIE thrown by me averaged below all probability tables. This could be an attempt at a gracious coverup by the Imperator for my play. Film at 11:00.

Jeff

Jeff, just bring your special dice to fall-In. Remember, the Black Die's day will come...
Or... every die has its day...

Originally Posted by Jeff Caruso

I'd like to report that the Team of " 2006 BC" (Brantley and Caruso) took first place by riding down all our opponents using an all mounted force with a 2 aggression. Unfortunately the results do not make that report possible as we lost narrowly (but consistently) in all bounds. We were even shoved out of last place by other more cunning players.

What did we learn? The scribes are compiling the events now for an indepth analysis so that Team 2006 BC can begin the finger pointing with a firm data base behind them.

First reports have shown that the BLACK DIE thrown by me averaged below all probability tables. This could be an attempt at a gracious coverup by the Imperator for my play. Film at 11:00.

Jeff

It can be stated now, with complete assurance of the facts, that Team 2006 BC lost BBDBA with their all mounted army due to the largest command carrying the wrong color standard into battle. While it was suspected that a problem might develop over morale and the general ability to prosecute a battle plan ( attack and roll 6's), the consequence of fighting under the wrong standard has been identified as the ONE TRUE EXCUSE for underperformance of Team 2006 BC at Historicon.

The acceptance of this truth takes nothing away from our opponent's lucky die rolling in setting terrain as defenders. They are free to continue under the false assumption that they were the better tacticians, whatever. Just wait till...

Jeff

Teams were arranged into three groups of four teams based on chronology, except that Classical Indian and Characene were swapped in an effort to balance the groups more evenly and make better sense in general.

Following the initial round robin group stage, the three group winners and the best second place finisher were seeded based on points and moved to the semifinals for elimination play.

This event marked a couple of firsts for Big Battle DBA tournament play… this is the first time we had multiple armies with scythed chariots, and even a Seleucid civil war (if not the exact same list a vs. c). It was also the first time we had two teams play with an army that had two allies.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and sorry about the delay in posting the results.

DS


BBDBA Doubles at Historicon 2006 Participants and Groups:

* - group winner.
** - best second place across all groups.

Jumbo/Successors Group:
1) Jim Dundorf and Mark Stricker - 129 pts.
Army: II/15. Alexandrian Imperial with II/3. Classical Indian ally

2) Jonathan and Alex Bostwick - 66 pts.
Army: II/19a. Seleucid

3) Tim Hladon and Rich Baier - 172 pts.
Army: II/19c. Seleucid

*4) Hank Drapalski and Rich Wright - 181 pts.
Army: II/3. Classical Indian

Dark Ages Mixed Group:
*5) Jonathan Miller and Doug Austin - 250 pts.
Army: II/22d. Characene with II/37. Parthian and II/23a. Arab Nomad allies

6) Jon Baldwin and Roland Fricke - 66 pts.
Army: III/2. Early Lombard with III/5a. Middle Frankish and III/13b. Avar allies

7) Chris Brantley and Jeff Caruso - 43 pts.
Army: III/55. Khitan-Liao

8) Jack "the Butcher" and Peter "the Cleaver" Sheriff - 174 pts.
Army: III/75. Konstantinian Byzantine with III/70a Georgian ally

Medieval Knight Group:
9) Ed Dillon and Joe Collins - 104 pts.
Army: IV/3. Anglo-Norman

*10) David Schlanger and David Kuijt - 270 pts.
Army: IV/68b. Medieval Portuguese

**11) David and Jason Bostwick - 194 pts.
Army: IV/64c. Medieval French with IV/16. Scots Common ally

12) Rob and Ruth Torres - 32 pts.
Army: IV/61. Italian Condotta with IV/79. Later Swiss ally

Semifinals:
#1 seed David Schlanger and David Kuijt defeated #3 seed Hank Drapalski and Rich Wright.

#4 seed David and Jason Bostwick defeated #2 seed Jonathan Miller and Doug Austin

Finals:
#1 seed David Schlanger and David Kuijt defeated #4 seed David and Jason Bostwick

Why didn't the number one seed play number four, and number two play number three? This gives the number one player a reward for a superior record, having an advantage of a battle against the "weaker" of the armies that made the finals. Look at how the NBA handles playoffs.

From reading the the lists it is easy to see that Bostwicks #4 and Davids #1 played each other in the round robin. So the split did not have them again in the first round. How does the NBA handle this case? If only the DBA players got the same salaries for playing games

By the way, my fault for the delay in David getting back the scores.

Originally Posted by Barron of Ideas

Why didn't the number one seed play number four, and number two play number three? This gives the number one player a reward for a superior record, having an advantage of a battle against the "weaker" of the armies that made the finals. Look at how the NBA handles playoffs.

As Bob pointed out, because the highest 2nd place finisher was in the same group as the #1 seed during round robin play, it seemed like the best choice would be to pair the semifinals so that they didn't play. There was no avoiding it for the finals of course.

If that was not an issue, it would have been #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 as you suggested.

DS